A federal judge has denied the NCAA request to immediately order DraftKings to stop using several of its tournament trademarks.
A federal judge has denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) request to order DraftKings to stop using several of its most recognisable tournament trademarks, at least for now.
The decision, first reported by the Associated Press, allows the sportsbook to continue using terms such as March Madness, Final Four, and Elite Eight during the 2026 college basketball tournaments.
The judge presiding over the case, US District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, dismissed the motion filed by the NCAA for a temporary restraining order.
She ruled that the NCAA did not sufficiently demonstrate how it would suffer irreparable harm by the continued use of its trademarks by DraftKings.
A determining factor in the ruling was timing. DraftKings has used the contested terminology for more than five years, a point the court highlighted as undermining the NCAA’s claim of urgency.
The delay weakened the argument that immediate intervention was necessary, creating a conundrum for the association’s legal challenge at this stage.
Despite the denial, the ruling did not dismiss the NCAA’s broader claims. Judge Pratt indicated that the organisation may still succeed on the merits of its trademark case as litigation continues.
This assessment implies that although DraftKings can continue with its usage in its present form, the ultimate result may still be in favour of the NCAA.
March Madness is fair game, says DraftKings
DraftKings has justified its position by stating that the use of these phrases can also be classified under fair use, which is covered under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The NCAA, however, has taken a different view.
It stated that it believes the use of its intellectual property (IP) in relation to betting on DraftKings could lead to confusion among consumers that there is an association between it and the betting operator.
Following the ruling, the NCAA signalled confidence in its case.
It pointed to the court’s acknowledgment that confusion among consumers is possible and that DraftKings’ use of the marks appears intended to capitalise on the tournaments’ established reputation.
The case is still active in the Southern District of Indiana, where the two parties will continue to build their cases.
The association is now preparing to move forward with its claims through the process of discovery and potentially a jury trial.
While DraftKings has the ability to use the terms for the remainder of the 2026 tournaments, the battle is not over, and the threat of a permanent injunction is still on the table.